Quashed

Purasawakkam Santhatha Sanga v. the Deputy Registrar of

Madras HC5 Oct 2023CRL OP/23251/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner company for alleged non-compliance with Sections 205C and 629 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner had adequately explained no unclaimed deposits remained and had filed the requisite forms, leading the court to dismiss the proceedings as no offence was made out.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in EOCC No.154 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, were quashed as against the petitioners.

Purasawakkam Santhatha Sanga Vs the Deputy Registrar of — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.23251 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No. 23251 of 2015

¶7

Purasaiwakkam Santhatha Sanga Nidhi Ltd., Rep. by its Director – Trustee Mr. N.B. Kothandaraman No.49, (Old No.47) Vellalar Street, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai – 600 084.

¶8

N.M.Manivannan 3. V.Raghupathi 4. A.R.Sridharan 5. T.S.Ravisankar ...Petitioners

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Deputy Registrar of Companies, Tamilnadu, Shastri Bhavan II Floor, Block V & VI, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to EOCC.No.154 of 2015, on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.23251 of 2015

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan For Respondent : Mr.A.Kumaraguru Central Government Standing Counsel

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in EOCC.No.154 of 2015, on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offence under the Companies Act, 2013 as against the petitioners.

¶18

The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 205C

¶19

r/w 629 of the Companies Act, 1956 for non-filing of return on deposit matured and transferred to the Investors Education and Protection Fund (hereinafter referred to as “IEPF”) against the petitioners, alleging that the petitioners failed to comply the provisions under Section 205 C of the Companies Act. The respondent issued show cause notice dated 28.08.2014, wherein they have sought information of transfer of matured

¶20

unpaid deposits of the accused company to the Investors Education and

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.23251 of 2015

¶24

Protection Fund under Section 205 C of the Companies Act and filing of return thereof for the year ended March, 31, 2011.

¶25

On receipt of the same, the petitioners submitted

¶26

explanation stating that they periodically transferring the sums which are remained unclaimed from the investors/share holders/depositors for a period of seven years and the filing of Form I INV is done on timely basis. Therefore, the petitioners have no amount which have unclaimed for the period of seven years from the date on which it has become due, which required to be transferred to the IEPF as required under Section 205 of the Companies Act. They have also taken steps to upload Form 5 INV by 15.09.2014 and asked for time. It was acknowledged and the Form 5 INV dated 15.09.2014 was submitted through E-filing for the year ended March, 2011. It was duly acknowledged and approved by the respondent as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

¶27

Further the filing of Form 5 INV was introduced by the Ministry of Corporation affairs by notification dated 10.05.2012 only. Earlier to the said notification, the filing of Form 1 was in force. Thereafter the said notification was introduced and accordingly, it should https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 6

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.23251 of 2015

¶29

be filed on or before 31.07.2012 or 90 days from the date of Annual General Body Meeting, whichever is later. The petitioners had conducted Annual General Body Meeting on 22.09.2011. Therefore, the time taken by the petitioners was well before the notification. The respondent lodged complaint on the ground that no reply was issued by the petitioners in response to the show cause notice dated 28.08.2014.

¶30

On perusal of records revealed that on receipt of the said

¶31

show cause notice, the petitioners had sent reply dated 01.09.2014, thereby they informed that no amount which had been unclaimed for a period of seven years from the date on which it has become due, required to be transferred to IEPF as required under Section 205C of the Companies Act. It was duly acknowledged by the respondent. That apart, Form 5 INV submitted by the petitioners was duly acknowledged by the respondent without any objection. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioners as alleged by the respondent and the present proceeding cannot be sustained and liable to be dismissed.

¶32

In view of the above discussions, the proceedings in

¶33

EOCC.No.154 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 6

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.23251 of 2015

¶35

Metropolitan Magistrate Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners and the Criminal Original

¶36

Petition stands allowed.

¶37

05.10.2023 (2/2)

¶38

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order

¶39

rts

¶40

¶41

The II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Economic Offences,

¶42

Egmore, Chennai

¶43

The Deputy Registrar of Companies, Tamilnadu, Shastri Bhavan II Floor, Block V & VI, 26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶44

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.23251 of 2015

¶48

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶49

rts

¶50

Crl.O.P.No. 23251 of 2015

¶51

05.10.2023 (2/2)

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

Page 6 of 6

Purasawakkam Santhatha Sanga v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purasawakkam Santhatha Sanga v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muruganandam Vs K.S.Chellappa

Nallamuthu Vs Shilpa Ravi Varma

The Management of Mrf Limited, Vs the Presiding Officer

V.Shankaraman, M/A.37 Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

R.Baba Shankar, M/A-70 Years Vs State Rep. by

Karthikeyan Vs State by